Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin at Supreme Court over Election Rules

[Contumacious]

Sedition?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/constitution-answer-seditious-members-congress-113001597.html

Let's review two pieces of news from the last week. First, the American coronavirus pandemic is entering its worst stage yet, with cases and deaths skyrocketing across the country. Last Thursday saw over 3,000 deaths — more than 9/11 or Pearl Harbor — and with ICU beds at or near capacity in most of the country, absent serious change it is possible there will be double or even triple that number per day in a matter of weeks. We may yet top the deadliest day in American history, the Galveston hurricane of 1900 that killed an estimated 8,000 people, very soon. President Trump is doing precisely nothing about this.

Second, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is under investigation for bribery and abuse of office, filed a baldly seditious lawsuit calling for the Supreme Court to overturn the election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and hand their electoral votes to Trump. It was flatly an attempt to overturn the 2020 election, end constitutional government, and install Trump in power. Before the Supreme Court threw the suit out Friday night, 17 other Republican state attorneys general had joined him, along with 126 members of the Republican caucus in the House, while Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has agreed to represent Trump. And this is just one of dozens of attempts that Republicans at all levels of government have concocted to overturn Trump's loss.

In short, material conditions in this country have not been this bad since 1932 at least, and the political situation has not been this bad since 1860. The logical endgame of the rapidly-accelerating Republican attempt to destroy democracy while the country burns would be civil war — if it weren't for the high probability that Democratic leaders would be too cowardly to fight.

But it's worth thinking about what a party seriously committed to preserving democracy would do when faced with a seditious opposition party — namely, cut them out of power and force them to behave. Democrats could declare all traitors ineligible to serve in national office, convene a Patriot Congress composed solely of people who have not committed insurrection against the American government, and use that power to re-entrench democracy.

Yahoo News ? The news "article" is pure garbage.

It is nothing more than a PROPAGANDA piece for the Deep State Cabal and BigPharma.


.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Its not that these Trump justices are bought and paid for, they're just moderates, they don't have balls, most republicans don't.

They know the law, and they know how to spot frivolous arguments.

We're barely approaching the end of Act 2 and not even at the climax yet.

The day it is over is when Biden is inaugurated.

It'll be over on Momday when the Electoral College meets and votes. Once that's done the only legal basis to challenge the result is to claim and prove to the satisfaction of the House and Senate that 75 votes for Biden weren't "regularly given" -- e.g., the person casting the vote was an impostor and not the person who was elected to be an elector. It will be too late to reguritate vapid conspiracy theories about how the electors were improperly chosen.

3 USC §15

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

So Trump and his supporters have two insurmountable problems: showing that 75 votes weren't regularly given and convincing a Democrat-controlled House of that claim. Heck, the odds are that even the Senate wouldn't go for such bilge even if both Republican candidates in Georgia win.

 

[Contumacious]

They know the law, and they know how to spot frivolous arguments.



It'll be over on Momday when the Electoral College meets and votes. Once that's done the only legal basis to challenge the result is to claim and prove to the satisfaction of the House and Senate that 75 votes for Biden weren't "regularly given" -- e.g., the person casting the vote was an impostor and not the person who was elected to be an elector. It will be too late to reguritate vapid conspiracy theories about how the electors were improperly chosen.



So Trump and his supporters have two insurmountable problems: showing that 75 votes weren't regularly given and convincing a Democrat-controlled House of that claim. Heck, the odds are that even the Senate wouldn't go for such bilge even if both Republican candidates in Georgia win.

The Supreme Court Justices are human have families and understand when they lives are threatened,

They also know that the Georgia Elections are pending subject to fraud, more than likely the Demo Rats will prevail and if they align with Trump their institution will be ABOLISHED


.The fact that the US House is controlled by Demo Rats is irrelevant from a 12A standpoint.


.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The fact that the US House is controlled by Demo Rats is irrelevant from a 12A standpoint.

You've been told before, but apparently your zeal for the Narcissist-in-Chief has dulled your reading ability (assuming you ever had the ability or inclination to read material that bursts your bubble). The 12th Amendment's voting-by-state-delegation procedure in the House comes into play only if someone doesn't get a majority of the electoral votes. But in determining whether someone has received a majority the procedure in 3 USC §15 applies, and voting on objections is done by the House and Senate as it usually is: by roll call, not by state delegation. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...2th&p=7000834&highlight=roll+call#post7000834

 

[enhanced_deficit]

This spanking of neocons poodles run confused TX GOP at the hands of SCOTUS though was very much expected (due to recent infighting between right and left wing globalists), this is ony a small step towards sinking of deep pockets funded neocons in US politics. Next 4 weeks could be interesting and may bring more fracturing of parasitic globalists funded puppets in both parties as MAGA wrecking ball now tries to hold accountable forever wars champions on the other side of the oily isle being accused of 'stealing election' from the alpha leader. In such a pursuit, MAGA should be supported during remaining few weeks of his time in White House.

 

[devil21]

I didn't think there would be any change to the actual election outcome even with SCOTUS taking up the case, but I'm very surprised SCOTUS punted, seeing how that was also an "opportunity" to change/set any precedent that TPTB may want to change. I briefly heard O'Reilly saying something to the effect that SCOTUS also weighs the societal impact of their decisions when deciding cases. That seems wrong from a purely legal perspective. I'm just reminded again how the 1871 Constitution that governs these federal elections, as opposed to the original 1789 Constitution, is merely a set of corporate bylaws that may or may not be followed. Guidelines but not laws of the land.

Judging by comments online, both shill and genuine, indeed a second Civil War is being fomented.

(btw, any Trumpers want to remind us how important SCOTUS appointees are, again? lol)

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Judging by comments online, both shill and genuine, indeed a second Civil War is being fomented.

Yes being fomented but will be bottled.

(btw, any Trumpers want to remind us how important SCOTUS appointees are, again? lol)

Upper management knows what it is doing.
But that is important question even if it being raised at a difficult time.

 

[DamianTV]

If voting mattered, it would be illegal. Well, it is about to be literally illegal.

Revolution occurs in three stages:

1. Spread of Information (Ron Paul Forums)
2. Public Disobedience
3. Violence

Violence is to be avoided at all costs, but, it may come and may not be successful. We are at Stage #2. It is time to Disobey. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the PEOPLE to DISOBEY. It is the OATH of the LAWKEEPERS to DISOBEY. That includes the US Military and Sheriffs.

You have a choice. Not between what is right and wrong, but between what is RIGHT AND EASY. Far too many people, especially the Communist Brainwashed College Educated Youths of today they will choose what is EASY over what is RIGHT. What will you choose?

 

[XNavyNuke]

anyways however troubling this election fraud allegations are, the silver lining if Trump loses, is that we will have the republican nomination fight in 4 years. That will be interesting to watch, now that Trump red pilled even more people like Ron Paul did.

Sadly, the party will put up/allow 30+ candidates to dilute the influence of anyone competent. Through this means, party leadership will put in place another milquetoast individual who will lose while the party will keep racking in the dollars because they are trying. Orange Man worked in part because of his demeanor, but also because he was not "of" the party. That won't happen again.

To quote Robert Heinlein in Take Back Your Government - "A suitable, available, and electable man is unlikely to want the job -- you must seek him out and convince him that his sacrifice could be worth-while". No one "of" the Republican Party meets that definition, and no one reasonable would be willing sacrifice to a party they know will cut them off at the knees, backstab them, and then leave them under the rubble once the stoning is complete.

XNN

 

[Occam's Banana]

I briefly heard O'Reilly saying something to the effect that SCOTUS also weighs the societal impact of their decisions when deciding cases. That seems wrong from a purely legal perspective.

Of course they do. However much civic mythology might like to pretend otherwise, the judicial system in general and SCOTUS in particular are not populated by entirely objective observers who are somehow "above the fray" and interested only in the neutral application of the law "as it is." If it was, there wouldn't be nearly as much contention over judicial nominations, nor would there be as many split decisions along "party lines."

SCOTUS et al. are as prone as anyone else to argue towards their desired conclusions on the basis of their personal & political preferences (or other factors, such as "societal impact"). They just have to find a way to express those preferences in terms of previously established law. And sometimes, they don't even have to bother doing that much (for example, they can just claim to have discovered previously unknown "penumbras" or some such thing).

 

[TheCount]

anyways however troubling this election fraud allegations are, the silver lining if Trump loses, is that we will have the republican nomination fight in 4 years. That will be interesting to watch, now that Trump red pilled even more people like Ron Paul did.

What exactly, did Trump red pill people about?


My prediction is that the next republican nomination fight will be entirely about competing cults of personality and have absolutely nothing to do with ideas or policies. This will be proven by the fact that at least one member of the Trump family will run.

 

[Contumacious]

You've been told before, but apparently your zeal for the Narcissist-in-Chief has dulled your reading ability (assuming you ever had the ability or inclination to read material that bursts your bubble). The 12th Amendment's voting-by-state-delegation procedure in the House comes into play only if someone doesn't get a majority of the electoral votes. But in determining whether someone has received a majority the procedure in 3 USC §15 applies, and voting on objections is done by the House and Senate as it usually is: by roll call, not by state delegation. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...2th&p=7000834&highlight=roll+call#post7000834

You've been told before, but apparently your zeal for the Parasitic/Socialist Axis has dulled your reading ability (assuming you ever had the ability or inclination to read material that bursts your bubble).

Assume, as now, the US Senate remains in Republican hands and the House remains in the hands of the Democrats come January 6. With Vice President Pence in the chair of the Joint Session as President of the Senate, he rules that in the extraordinary circumstances of the 2020 election , the “safe harbor” provisions of the Electoral Count Act apply and bind the House and Senate to accept only the electors certified by the State Legislatures of Pennsylvania and Michigan. Pence’s ruling would throw the election to Trump.

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/bill-pascrell-house-lawmaker-traitors-texas-lawsuit-023004107.html

Lawmakers Who Backed Texas Lawsuit Should Be Barred From House: NJ Congressman

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) has called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to bar 126 GOP representatives from the House, arguing that their support for the failed, baseless Texas lawsuit seeking to hijack the presidential election violated the Constitution.

[...]

Pascrell accused the House members who signed an amicus brief supporting the action — including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — of violating the Constitution by seeking to nullify Americans’ votes and instead choose a “dictator.” He cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War and designed to keep traitors out of government.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/constitution-answer-seditious-members-congress-113001597.html

[...]

But it's worth thinking about what a party seriously committed to preserving democracy would do when faced with a seditious opposition party — namely, cut them out of power and force them to behave. Democrats could declare all traitors ineligible to serve in national office, convene a Patriot Congress composed solely of people who have not committed insurrection against the American government, and use that power to re-entrench democracy.

EXCELLENT.

There is no better illustration of the fact that there is no sensible reason for people like NJ Rep. Pascrell or Ryan Cooper (the author of the second Yahoo! article quoted above) to continue to be bound together under the same polity with people they contemptuously regard as being traitors.

I hope that Pascrell, Yahoo! and others will keep up the great work they are doing. /not-sarcasm

 

[otherone]

EXCELLENT.

There is no better illustration of the fact that there is no sensible reason for people like NJ Rep. Pascrell or Ryan Cooper (the author of the second Yahoo! article quoted above) to continue to be bound together under the same polity with people they contemptuously regard as being traitors.

I hope that Pascrell, Yahoo! and others will keep up the great work they are doing. /not-sarcasm

The snipping from both sides will fester.
Let's see if they have enough guts to call for a constitutional convention.

 

[johnwk]

S.C. embraces Cuban style elections, strikes down Texas lawsuit and ignores rule of law!

.

According to countless media reports a majority on our Supreme Court has RULED that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution and that Texas did not provide a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

So, what is meant by “standing”?

When the Supreme Court considers to hear a case, the first question is, does the Plaintiff have a right to sue in the Supreme Court? This is what “standing” is about. It is not about the issue(s) in contention, but rather, is the Plaintiff entitled to be heard in the Supreme Court and have a resolution handed down by the Justices of the Supreme Court?

To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.

In the immediate case the State of Texas alleges in its BILL OF COMPLAINT that the Defendant States have violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

If the allegations are true as stated in the Complaint, Defendant States have allowed an overwhelming number of ineligible votes to be cast which canceled out the votes of lawful votes cast by the good people in the Plaintiff States, and in so doing, have disenfranchised their vote and engaged in a “depravation of rights under color of law” which is an actionable offense and injury.

Those States which have followed the Constitution in the appointment of presidential electors ought not to suffer from alleged unlawful conduct of States which may have violated the federal Constitution in their appointment of presidential electors.

In fact, the people of the Defendant States must be held accountable for the actions of those they have willingly elected to state offices of public trust, and, who in turn, may have violated federal requirements for elections, and in so doing, cancelled out the lawful votes of citizens in the Plaintive States who have abided by the rule of law.

Unlike countries such as Venezuela where the “rule of law” is meaningless, and those in power arbitrarily dictate the “rule of law”, our Country is built upon “the rule of law” and “consent of the governed”, and this distinguishes our country from dictatorships like Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.

Let us not forget that the voters of the Defendant States, and particularly so with respect to Pennsylvania, if the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct, were willing accomplices when they participated, in overwhelming numbers, and cast illegal ballots which violate one or more of the federal requirements for federal elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and our Constitution’s Electors Clause) and thus, is it not self-evident that their votes, if illegal, must not be allowed to cancel out the lawful votes of the people in States which adhered to federal requirements and the rule of law for federal elections?

To this degree, that if the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable ___ which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law ___ the Supreme Court ought to give a hearing to the allegations of Plaintiff States, and if such allegations are proven to be true, an obvious remedy would be to disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election.

For our Supreme Court to not do so, or provide an alternative remedy, is to embrace a depravation of rights under color of law and the tactics used in Cuban style elections, and ignore our fundamental founding principles . . . the rule of law and consent of the governed!

JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

 

[Contumacious]

.

According to countless media reports a majority on our Supreme Court has RULED that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution and that Texas did not provide a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

So, what is meant by “standing”?

When the Supreme Court considers to hear a case, the first question is, does the Plaintiff have a right to sue in the Supreme Court? This is what “standing” is about. It is not about the issue(s) in contention, but rather, is the Plaintiff entitled to be heard in the Supreme Court and have a resolution handed down by the Justices of the Supreme Court?

To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.

In the immediate case the State of Texas alleges in its BILL OF COMPLAINT that the Defendant States have violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

If the allegations are true as stated in the Complaint, Defendant States have allowed an overwhelming number of ineligible votes to be cast which canceled out the votes of lawful votes cast by the good people in the Plaintiff States, and in so doing, have disenfranchised their vote and engaged in a “depravation of rights under color of law” which is an actionable offense and injury.

Those States which have followed the Constitution in the appointment of presidential electors ought not to suffer from alleged unlawful conduct of States which may have violated the federal Constitution in their appointment of presidential electors.

In fact, the people of the Defendant States must be held accountable for the actions of those they have willingly elected to state offices of public trust, and, who in turn, may have violated federal requirements for elections, and in so doing, cancelled out the lawful votes of citizens in the Plaintive States who have abided by the rule of law.

Unlike countries such as Venezuela where the “rule of law” is meaningless, and those in power arbitrarily dictate the “rule of law”, our Country is built upon “the rule of law” and “consent of the governed”, and this distinguishes our country from dictatorships like Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.

Let us not forget that the voters of the Defendant States, and particularly so with respect to Pennsylvania, if the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct, were willing accomplices when they participated, in overwhelming numbers, and cast illegal ballots which violate one or more of the federal requirements for federal elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and our Constitution’s Electors Clause) and thus, is it not self-evident that their votes, if illegal, must not be allowed to cancel out the lawful votes of the people in States which adhered to federal requirements and the rule of law for federal elections?

To this degree, that if the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable ___ which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law ___ the Supreme Court ought to give a hearing to the allegations of Plaintiff States, and if such allegations are proven to be true, an obvious remedy would be to disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election.

For our Supreme Court to not do so, or provide an alternative remedy, is to embrace a depravation of rights under color of law and the tactics used in Cuban style elections, and ignore our fundamental founding principles . . . the rule of law and consent of the governed!

JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

Supreme Court Justices are human Beings with families.

The Deep State Cabal masterminding the electoral fraud and the covid19 hoax is ruthless.

Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer spoke of in glee, in response to then-president-elect Trump’s criticism of U.S. intelligence agencies. “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s host Rachel Maddow.


.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

You've been told before, but apparently your zeal for the Parasitic/Socialist Axis has dulled your reading ability (assuming you ever had the ability or inclination to read material that bursts your bubble).

Assume, as now, the US Senate remains in Republican hands and the House remains in the hands of the Democrats come January 6. With Vice President Pence in the chair of the Joint Session as President of the Senate, he rules that in the extraordinary circumstances of the 2020 election , the “safe harbor” provisions of the Electoral Count Act apply and bind the House and Senate to accept only the electors certified by the State Legislatures of Pennsylvania and Michigan. Pence’s ruling would throw the election to Trump.

You really are an imbecile. I guess you failed to notice that the hypothetical in the article you cited assumed that the legislatures of PA and MI certified the Trump electors by December 8 and that the Governors certified the Biden electors after the 8th but before the 14th, unlike what happened in the real world.

If the safe harbor provision (3 USC §5) applies, the Biden electors who were actually certified by PA and MI before December 8 cannot be rejected under the Act unless both houses determine that their votes weren't "regularly given". Pence has no say so in this determination.

Moreover, you flunked basic arithmetic. If you give the PA and MI votes to Trump, Biden still wins, 270-268.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Prediction: 50 years from now Democrats will openly admit to cheating Trump, but will argue that it was completely justified as Trump is literally the reincarnation of Hitler who was going to implement his sadistic agenda into his second term. They'll see themselves as heroes who were able to cast out the tyrant, and the American people will eat it all up without questioning it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You are completely correct.

However, I request you elaborate on what you believe the consequence of ideological self-segregation is in a heterogeneous population such as the United States. If you would be so kind, I am interested in your thoughts on the matter.

I am not certain what the exact consequences will be, or exactly how they will play out. But generally speaking, I think they will eventually manifest in one of three ways, as I described a couple of months ago in a post to another thread:

Very broadly speaking, I think one of three things will eventually happen (maybe sooner, maybe later):
(1) left-socialist authoritarians achieve power (through "fair" means or foul) and forcibly suppress the right in order to prevent reaction, or
(2) right-fascist authoritarians achieve power (through "fair" means or foul) and forcibly suppress the left in order to prevent counter-reaction, or
(3) some form of secession/separation/decentralization (perhaps by way of USSR-style collapse?) - with some parts falling under the boot of left-socialist authoritarianism, some parts falling under the boot of right-fascist authoritarianism, and/or (it is to be hoped) some parts falling under neither.

One thing is glaringly obvious: neither mass democracy nor representative republicanism is at all tenable on the scale of a third of a billion people - and especially so when the nation of the aforesaid people is barreling pell-mell towards warfare/welfare-induced fiscal disaster of epic proportions.

Sooner or later, something's gotta give ...

 

[Pauls' Revere]

EXCELLENT.

There is no better illustration of the fact that there is no sensible reason for people like NJ Rep. Pascrell or Ryan Cooper (the author of the second Yahoo! article quoted above) to continue to be bound together under the same polity with people they contemptuously regard as being traitors.

I hope that Pascrell, Yahoo! and others will keep up the great work they are doing. /not-sarcasm

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

EXCELLENT! - Yes, why then will the left associate, tolerate, and live aside by those they despise or they deem to be of a traitorous character? Why not let them secede and leave the left alone to live as they please? Better yet, why won't the left take up the secession idea and leave the right? This is a bipartisan idea that both should get behind.